I've always wondered this. We all know he considers this one of his toughest losses. Considering He always had so much respect for Rafa and he had been on top for so long, not to mention won the title the previous 5 years, should it really have bothered him that much? I think the press was ready to bury him at that point and were salivating over who would be the "next" guy, which is why he reacted the way he did after the AO final the next year. I think he was determined to show he wasn't done yet but maybe even started to question himself after that loss. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I don't think that loss bothered Fed that terribly. Maybe for a few weeks afterwards but that's it. Fed still won USO that year and would win 2 slams the year after (including Wimbledon). The loss that bothered him the most was AO 2009 but even that turned out to be mostly an overreaction in the heat of the moment (he would win AO the next year). I don't think he enjoys being 2-8 overall against Rafa in slams and losing to Rafa in 3 out of the 4 slams when he has only beaten Rafa in 1 out of the 4 but that's another story :twisted:

While I agree he played very well, I don't think it was THE best match of his career. I certainly think his level was just as good as 2007 only Nadal was giving him more trouble in 08 than 07.

I think if abmk sees this he won't sleep. He'll probably pull out a stat sheet to try and prove you wrong...

Click to expand...

By "best match," I mean the match itself, not Federer's individual level of tennis. Federer played very well, and so did Nadal, but what made the match great was that they both played at a high level and their levels were so close to each other. It was high quality, and nail-bitingly close. That's what makes a great tennis match.

MichaelNadal will NOT do that. He is a gem of a guy and I rarely say such words about an anonymous internet poster. He wouldn't start a thread with the intention of hurting anyone, let alone Roger fans. I think he is asking a genuine question

Click to expand...

The only reason MichaelRalph praises Fed is because it makes Ralph look better than he actually is, afterall Ralph made fame and fortune by beating the GOAT. It's quite disingenuous,don't fall for it.

Yea,he's better than some of the hardcore Nadaltards like NSK but a gem? Please. Calling Djokovic a gorilla while he was thrashing his idol black n blue in that stretch in 2011 isn't a trait of a gem. I saw him in the pro-match results section while Ralph was getting beaten in that famous 2011 stretch, all he posted was garbage about Djokovic, I'm sure there are more who remember it.

He maybe says to the press he respects Rafa. But deep down, he is thinking how could I lose to a moonballer on grass.

Click to expand...

The grass doesn't quite play like how a typical grasscourt should play in the second week,the ball bounces higher and just sits up for a lasso whip.
Why else is Ralph so vulnerable to big hitters in the first week of Wimby?

I've always wondered this. We all know he considers this one of his toughest losses. Considering He always had so much respect for Rafa and he had been on top for so long, not to mention won the title the previous 5 years, should it really have bothered him that much? I think the press was ready to bury him at that point and were salivating over who would be the "next" guy, which is why he reacted the way he did after the AO final the next year. I think he was determined to show he wasn't done yet but maybe even started to question himself after that loss. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

The flip side is Fed was probably lucky to have beaten Roddick in the Wimbledon final as Roddick was really riding a wave. The was Roddick's match to win or lose. Federer may be the greatest tennis player to ever play the game but will never be considered one of the most gracious losers. Laver and Borg always exemplified great sportsmanship and respect for their opponents even in defeat. Although I know that Laver hated to lose to Nasty.

The flip side is Fed was probably lucky to have beaten Roddick in the Wimbledon final as Roddick was really riding a wave. The was Roddick's match to win or lose. Federer may be the greatest tennis player to ever play the game but will never be considered one of the most gracious losers. Laver and Borg always exemplified great sportsmanship and respect for their opponents even in defeat. Although I know that Laver hated to lose to Nasty.

Laver and Borg are pretty lucky to have lived in an era devoid of digital records. Everything Federer has ever said has been probably cached by google, posted on thousands of websites, and forever will be a part of the internet database. It takes a few hours max after every match that he plays that a full length match recording is posted on youtube.

Majority of the stuff we have on Laver/Borg is presented to us by staunch fans who are heavily biased. I would bet my house that neither Laver/Borg were second comings either and had their own share of not so bright moments.

With Fed playing Nadal at RG is more of a mental issue....I forget which year it was last year or the one before he had NAdal 5-2 in the first playing aggressive dumped a volley in the net and it all went downhill.

On clay as everyone knows NAdals moonball to rogs backhand causes issues ......that is the only reason....

Still if Fed gets his mind right he could beat him at RG as he has beaten Nadal on clay before if memory serves me right bagelled him in one of the sets in I think the Hamburg final.

If they played 20 times on all surfaces hard, grass and clay of the 90s Fed would have the winning record......its his loss that the organisers made every surface as slow as clay...even grass currently is slower than in the 90s....

Nadal really should not have won W08. Federer was just low on confidence that year from so many matches he let slip away before. Federer is and always will be the superior grass court player.

Click to expand...

Exactly. All of the reasons that everyone has said are legit (historic 6 Wimby's in a row, revenge for the FO'08 loss, his "home" turf, etc.) But the reality is that until this point, Nadal was still tabbed a one-surface wonder (despite having made the Wimby final twice already). This gave Nadal legitimate claim that he was #1, not Fed, and would tilt the mental edge to Nadal on all surfaces, not just clay, when Fed was clearly the more skilled player on grass and hard. The fact that Fed did not have to face Nadal in the USO final that year was a godsend, because he probably would have lost had it been Nadal. We all saw what happened in the AO a few months later. I'm a huge Fed fan and think he is clearly the better player, but I have no problem admitting that Nadal has owned him on the big stage.

monfed, I hear what you're saying, but with all due respect, you're missing my point: I was not disputing whether Ralphie bawled his eyes out ater the W07 final. I was addressing dropshotartist's patently absurd contention that Nadal "was not man enough to do it (cry) in public." If someone chooses not to break down in front of other people, that's their perogative. It doesn't make them a COWARD as you suggested. Both of those "less manly" and "cowardly" contentions are unfair and dare I say kind of funny and fanboy-ish. Heck, some might say that Nadal actually manned up when he clammed up and was able to keep his bitter emotions in check (as disappointed as he was).

The point is, whether one chooses to lose it in public or later in the locker room doesn't make a person more manly or more courageous than the other person. It's simply how each one processes grief. Fed gave into the tears at the AO, that's ok, that's who he is. Nadal fought back his tears out in the open, that's the way he chose to deal with the moment.

Now, can you please let me go back to being a smart aleck, retarded fanboy-baiting troll pleeeeze? ;-)